Angus, you are having such a great kick out of emphasizing a dark side of the moon interpretation of lazs' posts, I'm not even going to bother. You're in the same sort of unilateral bind that keeps people from different cultures from understanding each other and seeing through each others' eyes.
I can't take you seriously when, knowing what lazs actualy means, I see you (erroneously) pretend you've got the right interpretation of him.
Royale is gushing with exactly the sort of womanly BS that Lazs points out. The argument in this case is almost perfectly analogous to his unrestrained irreverance for BS black martyrdom in the US.
If Lazs was a woman with as much brains as he has, he'd (she'd) point out exactly what's wrong with men's patriarchal monopole on everything from philosophy to blue-collar livelihood, how they should not have gotten the right to vote in practice, but in theory do deserve no less rights and freedoms as women.
Or maybe he'd write something pretty similar to Rand's stuff. What would Rand say to some goody two shoes marshmallow like Royal?
As I said before and you tip toed around to continue your faulty argument, women by and large are conditioned against the quitessential qualities of life that lazs champions, a prime example being unbriddled individualism.
Being so far down that path, it makes the opposite side of the issue that much more wrong to someone like him (and polarizes people's response to him and/or his ideas), and it justifies saying that a group which would pretty much reverse everything he stands for should have a restraining order, which in the case of government, means voting, since those people opposite him will vote to not only satisfy their needs but inherently damage his, or worse.
The problem isn't inherent to women but to their conditioning via education and social status quos. The vote lazs (starting to speak for him a lot, but I'm pretty sure I've got this right) wants to deny isn't of women, but of womanly people too lacking in individuality, in self-sufficiency, in ruggedness, etc.
Rolex, this ties in to what you're saying: women weren't well suited to voting at the time because they were too uneducated. Isn't someone ill-educated no better than someone not educated at all? Someone conditioned to live without thinking for themselves is not who the founders intended americans to be, not those whose votes they intended to further their vision.
There is definitely a tint to lazs' point of view on most things, but it should be a no brainer to ignore the personal artifacts in the stream of arguments. Obviously you don't think so, and can't help but single out those personality quirks rather than the real substance of the arguments.
You're like Zulu and Beetle, except instead of braindead anti-american trolling (actualy Zulu was just pure gibberish) or anti-gun/anti-american sniping, you're sniping at lazs' peculiarities.
I think it's stupid, if for no better reason, because 1) he's factualy correct if you take the arguments objectively and impartialy, and 2) he's a specimen too rare to let go extinct.
